HUMAN RIGHTS AND ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO LIFE
Elena Bonner, the widow of great scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov and an outstanding human rights activist in her own right, is truly one of the heroes of the modern age. (It was my privilege to interview Bonner nearly two years ago for this article.) Yesterday, the 86-year-old grande dame of the Russian human rights movement spoke at the Oslo Freedom Forum. Her speech, of which Ms. Bonner sent me an English translation, is worth reproducing in full. Ms. Bonner is a woman of strong and outspoken opinions; agree or disagree, she is always worth hearing.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Friends,
In his invitation to this conference, the president of the forum, Thor Halvorssen, asked me to talk about my life, the suffering I have endured, and how I was able to bear it all. But today all that seems to me quite unnecessary.
So I will say only a few words about myself.
At the age of 14, I was left without my parents. My father was executed, my mother spent 18 years in prison and exile. My grandmother raised me and my younger brother. The poet Vladimir Kornilov, who suffered the same fate, wrote: “And it felt that in those years we had no mothers. We had grandmothers.” There were hundreds of thousands of such children. Ilya Ehrenburg called us “the strange orphans of 1937”.
Then came the war. My generation was cut off nearly at the roots by the war, but I was lucky. I came back from the war. I came back to an empty house. My grandmother had died of starvation in the siege of Leningrad . Then came a communal apartment, six half-hungry years of medical school, falling in love, two children, and the poverty of a Soviet doctor. But I was not alone in this. Everyone lived this way.
Then there was my dissident period followed by exile. But Andrei and I were together! And that was true happiness.
Today, summing up my life (at age 86, I try to sum up my life every day I am still alive), I can do so in three words. My life was typical, tragic, and beautiful. Whoever needs the details — read my two books, Alone Together and Mothers and Daughters. They have been translated into many languages. Read Sakharov’s Memoirs. It’s a pity his Diaries haven’t been translated; they were published in Russia in 2006. Apparently, the West isn’t interested in Sakharov right now.
The West isn’t very interested in Russia either, a country that no longer has real elections, independent courts, or freedom of the press. Russia is a country where journalists, human rights activists, and migrants are killed regularly, almost daily. And extreme corruption flourishes of a kind and extent that never existed earlier in Russia or anywhere else. So what do the Western mass media discuss mainly? Gas and oil — of which Russia has a lot. Energy is its only political trump card, and Russia uses it as an instrument of pressure and blackmail. And there’s another topic that never disappears from the newspapers — who rules Russia ? Putin or Medvedev? But what difference does it make, if Russia has completely lost the impulse for democratic development that we thought we saw in the early 1990s? Russia will remain the way it is now for decades, unless there is some violent upheaval.
During the years since the fall of the Berlin wall, the world has experienced incredible changes in an exceptionally short period. But has the world become better, or more prosperous for the six billion eight hundred million people who live on our small planet? No one can answer that question unambiguously, despite all the achievements of science and technology and that process which we customarily call “progress”. It seems to me that the world has become more alarming, more unpredictable, and more fragile. This alarm, unpredictability, and fragility are felt to some extent by all countries and all individuals. And civic and political life becomes more and more virtual, like a picture on a computer screen.
Even so, the picture of life, formed by television, newspaper, or radio remains the same — there is no end to the conferences, summits, forums, and competitions from beauty contests to sandwich eating ones. They say people are coming together — but in reality, they are growing apart.
And that isn’t because an economic depression suddenly burst forth, and swine flu to boot. This began on September 11, 2001. At first, anger and horror was provoked by the terrorists who knocked down the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and by their accomplices in London , Madrid and other cities, and by the shaheeds, suicide bombers who blew themselves up at public spaces like discotheques and wedding parties whose families were rewarded $25,000 each by Saddam Hussein. Later, Bush was blamed for everything, and as always, the Jews — that is, Israel . An example was the first Durban Conference, and the growth of anti-Semitism in Europe , noted several years ago in a speech by Romano Prodi. Then there was Durban-2; the main speaker was Ahmadinejad proposing to annihilate Israel .
So it is about Israel and the Jews that I will speak. And not only because I am Jewish, but above all because the Middle Eastern conflict since the end of World War II has been a platform for political games and gambling by the great powers, the Arab countries and individual politicians, striving, through the so-called “peace process,” to make a name for themselves, and perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize. At one time, the Nobel Peace Prize was the highest moral award of our civilization. But after December 1994, when Yasir Arafat became one of the three new laureates, its ethical value was undermined. I haven’t always greeted each selection of the Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting with joy, but that one shocked me. And to this day, I cannot understand and accept the fact that Andrei Sakharov and Yasir Arafat, now posthumously, share membership in the club of Nobel laureates.
In many of Sakharov’s publications (in his books Progress, Coexistence and Intellectual Freedom and My Country and the World, in his articles, and in his interviews), Andrei Dmitrievich wrote and spoke about Israel . I have a collection of citations of his writing on this topic. If it were published in Norway , then many Norwegians would be surprised at how sharply their contemporary view of Israel differs from the view of Sakharov.
Here are several citations from Sakharov:
“ Israel has an indisputable right to exist.” “ Israel has a right to existence within safe borders.” “All the wars that Israel has waged have been just, forced upon it by the irresponsibility of Arab leaders.” “With all the money that has been invested in the problem of Palestinians, it would have been possible long ago to resettle them and provide them with good lives in Arab countries.”
Throughout the years of Israel ’s existence there has been war. Victorious wars, and also wars which Israel was not allowed to win. Each and every day — literally every day — there is the expectation of a terrorist act or a new war. We have seen the Oslo Peace Initiatives and the Camp-David Hand-shake and the Road-map and Land for Peace (there is not much land — from one side of Israel on a clear day you can see the other side with the naked eye).
Now, there is a new (actually, quite old) motif currently in fashion (in fact it’s an old one): “Two states for two peoples.” It sounds good. And there is no controversy in the peace-making Quartet, made up of the U.S. , the UN, the EU, and Russia (some great peace-maker, with its Che chen war and its Abkhazian-Ossetian provocation). The Quartet, and the Arab countries, and the Palestinian leaders (both Hamas and Fattah) put additional demands to Israel . I will speak only of one demand: that Israel take back the Palestinian refugees. And here a little history and demography are needed.
According to the official UN definition, those who have fled from violence and wars are considered refugees — but not their descendants who are born in another country. At one time the Palestinian refugees and the Jewish refugees from Arab countries were about equal in number — about 700,000 to 800,000. The newly-created state of Israel took in the Jews (about 600,000). They were officially recognized as refugees by UN Resolution 242, but not provided with any UN assistance. Palestinians, however, are considered refugees not only in the first generation, but in the second, third, and now even in the fourth generation. According to the UN Works and Relief Agency’s report, the number of registered Palestinian refugees has grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.6 million in 2008, and continues to rise due to natural population growth. All these people have the rights of Palestinian refugees and are eligible to receive humanitarian aid.
The entire population of Israel is about 7.5 million, among them about 2.5 million ethnic Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Imagine Israel then, if another five million Arabs flood into it; Arabs would substantially outnumber the Jewish population. Thus created next to Israel will be a Palestinian state cleansed of Jews, because in addition to the demand that Palestinian refugees return to Israel , there is also the demand that Judea and Samaria be cleansed of Jews and turned over to Palestinians – while in Gaza today there is not a single Jew remaining.
The result is both strange and frigthening, and not because Israel will be actually destroyed – it’s a different time and different Jews. It is terrifying to see the short memory of the august peace-making Quartet, their leaders and their citizens if they let this happen. Because the plan “two states for two peoples” is the creation of one state, ethnically cleansed of Jews, and a second one with the potential to do the same thing. A Judenfrei Holy Land - the dream of Adolph Hitler come true at last. So think again, those who are still able, who has a fascist inside him today?
And another question that has been a thorn for me for a long time. It’s a question for my human rights colleagues. Why doesn’t the fate of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit trouble you in the same way as the fate of the Guantanamo prisoners?
You fought for and won the opportunity for the International Committee of the Red Cross, journalists, and lawyers to visit Guantanamo . You know prison conditions, the prisoners’ everyday routine, their food. You have met with prisoners subjected to torture. The result of your efforts has been a ban on torture and a law to close this prison. President Obama signed it in the first days of his coming to the White House. And although he, like President Bush before him, does not know what to do with the Guantanamo prisoners, there is hope that the new Administration will come up with something.
But during the two years Shalit has been held by terrorists, the world human rights community has done nothing for his release. Why? He is a wounded soldier, and fully falls under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions say clearly that hostage-taking is prohibited, that representatives of the Red Cross must be allowed to see prisoners of war, especially wounded prisoners, and there is much else written in the Geneva Conventions about Shalit’s rights. The fact that representatives of the Quartet conduct negotiations with the people who are holding Shalit in an unknown location, in unknown conditions, vividly demonstrates their scorn of international rights documents and their total legal nihilism. Do human rights activists also fail to recall the fundamental international rights documents?
And yet I still think (and some will find this naïve) that the first tiny, but real step toward peace must become the release of Shalit. Release — not exchange for 1000 or 1,500 prisoners who are in Israeli prisons serving court sentences for real crimes.
Returning to my question of why human rights activists are silent, I can find no answer except that Shalit is an Israeli soldier, Shalit is a Jew. So again, it is conscious or unconscious anti-Semitism. Again, it is fascism.
Thirty-four years have passed since the day when I came to this city to represent my husband, Andrei Sakharov, at the 1975 Nobel Prize ceremony. I was in love with Norway then. The reception I received filled me with joy. Today, I feel Alarm and Hope (the title Sakharov used for his 1977 essay written at the request of the Nobel Committee).
Alarm because of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment growing throughout Europe and even further afield. And yet, I hope that countries, their leaders, and people everywhere will recall and adopt Sakharov’s ethical credo: “In the end, the moral choice turns out to be also the most pragmatic choice.”
Monday, June 22, 2009
Saturday, June 20, 2009
RELIGION vs. MORALITY - IRAN - JUNE 2009
AN ELECTION WAR
Early in their founding eras, religions discovered an enemy in morality. In the ensuing wars between them, religious leaders, as all leaders attempt to do in time of war, found ways to undermine their enemies’ strengths. A monstrous strategy grew out of a simple military tactic; dress and speak like the enemy, infiltrate his ranks, discover what and where his weapons are and what his battle plans are, and by playing his game and taking over his assets, pretend to be him and destroy him. Thus, religion co-opted morality and now uses it as cover for nefarious acts.
Events in Iran today, June of 2009, show the schism between religious practice and moral functioning and the preaching of morality. These events also show clearly the essence of the religion-power combination. The tremendous overt psychological power of religion over the masses combined with economic power over human activity, both constructive and destructive, make it almost impossible for the masses to revolt for a better life. The election and the subsequent fraudulent functioning of the religious leaders and their supreme religious leader on behalf of economic and military power elites is a clear demonstration of religious immorality.
Can this nascent non-religious Iranian Revolution succeed even to the minimalist extent of the Russian Revolution? Religious power was beaten by the leadership’s education and subsequent laws against religion, driving it underground for five decades. However, the economic power elite soon subverted the success of the masses and with the aid of capitalist nations, including the United States, succeeded in taking control of life in the Soviet Union for the benefit, not of the masses, but for the benefit of the elites.
Customarily, economic power elites control governments. In Iran, since the revolution led by Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini in 1979, religion took over the government, but, and here’s the rub, the power elites remained in power behind the curtain of religion which was behind the curtain of government, as evidenced by the aggrandizement of military capability and capital growth. In much of the world, and certainly the Western world, religion is behind the curtain of the economic power elites and those elites, behind their curtain, control the governments.
In the coming days and weeks in Iran, the morality of religion will prove to be the immoral weapon and the chimera it is.
Early in their founding eras, religions discovered an enemy in morality. In the ensuing wars between them, religious leaders, as all leaders attempt to do in time of war, found ways to undermine their enemies’ strengths. A monstrous strategy grew out of a simple military tactic; dress and speak like the enemy, infiltrate his ranks, discover what and where his weapons are and what his battle plans are, and by playing his game and taking over his assets, pretend to be him and destroy him. Thus, religion co-opted morality and now uses it as cover for nefarious acts.
Events in Iran today, June of 2009, show the schism between religious practice and moral functioning and the preaching of morality. These events also show clearly the essence of the religion-power combination. The tremendous overt psychological power of religion over the masses combined with economic power over human activity, both constructive and destructive, make it almost impossible for the masses to revolt for a better life. The election and the subsequent fraudulent functioning of the religious leaders and their supreme religious leader on behalf of economic and military power elites is a clear demonstration of religious immorality.
Can this nascent non-religious Iranian Revolution succeed even to the minimalist extent of the Russian Revolution? Religious power was beaten by the leadership’s education and subsequent laws against religion, driving it underground for five decades. However, the economic power elite soon subverted the success of the masses and with the aid of capitalist nations, including the United States, succeeded in taking control of life in the Soviet Union for the benefit, not of the masses, but for the benefit of the elites.
Customarily, economic power elites control governments. In Iran, since the revolution led by Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini in 1979, religion took over the government, but, and here’s the rub, the power elites remained in power behind the curtain of religion which was behind the curtain of government, as evidenced by the aggrandizement of military capability and capital growth. In much of the world, and certainly the Western world, religion is behind the curtain of the economic power elites and those elites, behind their curtain, control the governments.
In the coming days and weeks in Iran, the morality of religion will prove to be the immoral weapon and the chimera it is.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
JIMMY CARTER RIDES AGAIN
Jimmy Carter, a former president of the United States, is again self-involved in the Middle East Mess. He has come to “Save” Palestinians from Judaism. Maybe he is not aware that Palestinians are Muslims and he should be saving them from the decadence and savagery of Islamic fundamentalism, as practiced by Hamas.
Carter has decided that the ills, trials, and tribulations of life of the Palestinians in Gaza can be corrected by Israel being more generous with the lives of its citizens. When rockets were landing in Jewish Israel, Carter stayed home to write his book about the separation of Jews and Arabs imposed by the Apartheid State of Israel. Perhaps if rockets landed in the Peanut State of Georgia, Carter might have understood the need to protect his friends and family from the depredations of Georgia-hating Arabs. He might then have understood that providing the rocketeers with life-sustaining peanuts keeps the rockets flying.
Why can’t Jimmy leave the Jews alone? What keeps him scratching this pimple? For some strange reason, Carter wants the world to accept the terrorist organization, Hamas, into its bosom, this despite its avowed intent to destroy the Jewish State.
Ah-h-h, now I get it. Destroy Israel. Now his missionary zeal makes sense. By destroying Israel, the world will move closer to the immolation promised by Armageddon. So long as Israel protects holy Jerusalem and the biblical lands, it interferes with the Second Coming. So, using the agency of Arab hatred and destructive intent, the great Christian religionist, Jimmy Carter will remove the obstacle to that wonderful event. By so doing he will achieve martyrdom.
I have a better solution for Carter’s desire for martyrdom; let him convert to Islam and become a suicide bomber who blows himself up – hopefully a solo event – and thereby achieve his apparent desired goal.
Carter has decided that the ills, trials, and tribulations of life of the Palestinians in Gaza can be corrected by Israel being more generous with the lives of its citizens. When rockets were landing in Jewish Israel, Carter stayed home to write his book about the separation of Jews and Arabs imposed by the Apartheid State of Israel. Perhaps if rockets landed in the Peanut State of Georgia, Carter might have understood the need to protect his friends and family from the depredations of Georgia-hating Arabs. He might then have understood that providing the rocketeers with life-sustaining peanuts keeps the rockets flying.
Why can’t Jimmy leave the Jews alone? What keeps him scratching this pimple? For some strange reason, Carter wants the world to accept the terrorist organization, Hamas, into its bosom, this despite its avowed intent to destroy the Jewish State.
Ah-h-h, now I get it. Destroy Israel. Now his missionary zeal makes sense. By destroying Israel, the world will move closer to the immolation promised by Armageddon. So long as Israel protects holy Jerusalem and the biblical lands, it interferes with the Second Coming. So, using the agency of Arab hatred and destructive intent, the great Christian religionist, Jimmy Carter will remove the obstacle to that wonderful event. By so doing he will achieve martyrdom.
I have a better solution for Carter’s desire for martyrdom; let him convert to Islam and become a suicide bomber who blows himself up – hopefully a solo event – and thereby achieve his apparent desired goal.
RUPERT MURDOCH SPEAKS
This is an address by Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News Corporation and one of the most famous people in the world's media today. He delivered this response upon receiving the National Human Relations Award given him by the American Jewish Committee on March 4th, 2009 in New York City. It is well worth reading.
Thanks for those kind words, Hugh.
Over the years, some of my wildest critics seem to have assumed I am Jewish. At the same time, some of my closest friends wish I were.
So tonight, let me set the record straight: I live in New York . I have a wife who craves Chinese food. And people I trust tell me I practically invented the word "chutzpah".
Ladies and gentleman, I thank you for having me tonight. I also want to thank Nelson Peltz … Michael Gould … and the many co-chairs for the time and effort they have put into this event. I am humbled by the honor you have given me - because this award speaks more to your good work than it does to mine.
Michael, I was fascinated to hear you talk about this history of this fine organization. The American Jewish Committee started in response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia . And your response took a very American form: An organization that would speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.
In the century since your founding, the American Jewish Committee has become one of the world's most influential organizations. Yet though your concerns begin with the safety and welfare of Jews, these concerns are anything but parochial. The reason for this is clear: You know that the best guarantee of the security of Jews anywhere is the freedom of people everywhere.
Your good work has helped bring real and lasting changes to our world. Unfortunately, while some threats have been defeated, new ones have taken their place. And these new threats remind us the AJC's work is more vital than ever.
In Europe , men and woman who bear the tattoos of concentration camps today look out on a continent where Jewish lives and Jewish property are under attack - and public debate is poisoned by an anti-Semitism we thought had been dispatched to history's dustbin.
In Iran , we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.
In India , we see Islamic terrorists single out the Mumbai Jewish Center in a well-planned and well-coordinated attack that looks like it could be a test run for similar attacks in similar cities around the world.
Most fundamentally, we see a growing assault on both the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel .
This assault comes from people who make clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state - no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reasons they hate us.
At I speak, the flashpoint is Gaza . For months now, Hamas has been raining down rockets on Israeli civilians. Like all terrorist attacks, the aim is to spread fear within free societies, and to paralyze its leaders. This Israel cannot afford. I do not need to tell anyone in this room that no sovereign nation can sit by while its civilian population is attacked.
Hamas knows this better than we do. And Hamas understands something else as well: In the 21st century, when democratic states respond to terrorist attacks, they face two terrible handicaps.
The first handicap is military. It's true that Israel 's conventional superiority means it could flatten Gaza if it wanted. But the Israeli Defense Forces - unlike Hamas - are accountable to a democratically chosen government.
No matter which party is in the majority, every Israeli government knows it will be held accountable by its people and by the world for the lives that are lost because of its decisions. That's true for lives of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. And it's also true for the Israeli soldiers who may lose their lives defending their people.
In this kind of war, Hamas does not need to defeat Israel militarily to win a big victory. In fact, Hamas knows that in some ways, dead Palestinians serve their purposes even better than dead Israelis.
In the West we look at this and say, "It makes no sense." But it does make sense.
If you are committed to Israel 's destruction, and if you believe that dead Palestinians help you score a propaganda victory, you do things like launch rockets from a Palestinian schoolyard. This ensures that when the Israelis do respond, it will likely lead to the death of an innocent Palestinian - no matter how many precautions Israeli soldiers take.
Hamas gets away with this, moreover, because they do not rule Gaza by the consent of those they claim to represent. They rule by fear and intimidation. They are accountable to no one but themselves.
This is the chilling logic of Gaza . And it helps explain why even a strong military power like Israel can find itself at a disadvantage on the ground.
The second handicap for Israel is the global media war. For Hamas, the images of Palestinian suffering - of people losing their homes, of parents mourning their dead children, of tanks rolling through the streets -create sympathy for their cause.
In a battle marked by street to street fighting, the death of innocents is all but inevitable. That is also true of Gaza . And these deaths have led some to call for Israel to be charged with war crimes by an international tribunal.
But I am curious: Why do we never hear calls for Hamas leaders to be charged with war crimes?
Why, for example, do we hear no calls for human rights investigations into Hamas gunmen using Palestinian children as human shields? Why so few stories on the reports of Hamas assassins going to hospitals to hunt down their fellow Palestinians? And where are the international human rights groups demanding that Hamas stop blurring the most fundamental line in warfare: the distinction between civilian and combatant?
I suspect the answer has to do with the same grim logic that leads Hamas to provoke a military battle it knows it cannot win. Whether Israel is ever found guilty of any war crime hardly matters. Hamas gets propaganda win simply by having the charge made often and loudly enough.
In this, Israel finds itself in much the same position the United States found itself in Iraq before the surge. There, al Qaeda realized that it was in its interests to provoke sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni - no matter what the cost to innocent Iraqis. That is the nature of terror. And what we are seeing in Gaza is just one front in this much larger war.
In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States . Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel .
In this new century, the "West" is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it. And if we are serious about meeting this challenge, we would expand the only military alliance committed to the defense of the West to include those on the front lines of this war. That means bringing countries such as Israel into NATO.
My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.
In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace … who reject freedom … and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.
Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.
I thank you for listening. I thank you for this award. And I thank you for all you are doing to make our world a safer and freer place.
Thanks for those kind words, Hugh.
Over the years, some of my wildest critics seem to have assumed I am Jewish. At the same time, some of my closest friends wish I were.
So tonight, let me set the record straight: I live in New York . I have a wife who craves Chinese food. And people I trust tell me I practically invented the word "chutzpah".
Ladies and gentleman, I thank you for having me tonight. I also want to thank Nelson Peltz … Michael Gould … and the many co-chairs for the time and effort they have put into this event. I am humbled by the honor you have given me - because this award speaks more to your good work than it does to mine.
Michael, I was fascinated to hear you talk about this history of this fine organization. The American Jewish Committee started in response to the persecution of Jews in Czarist Russia . And your response took a very American form: An organization that would speak up for those who could not speak for themselves.
In the century since your founding, the American Jewish Committee has become one of the world's most influential organizations. Yet though your concerns begin with the safety and welfare of Jews, these concerns are anything but parochial. The reason for this is clear: You know that the best guarantee of the security of Jews anywhere is the freedom of people everywhere.
Your good work has helped bring real and lasting changes to our world. Unfortunately, while some threats have been defeated, new ones have taken their place. And these new threats remind us the AJC's work is more vital than ever.
In Europe , men and woman who bear the tattoos of concentration camps today look out on a continent where Jewish lives and Jewish property are under attack - and public debate is poisoned by an anti-Semitism we thought had been dispatched to history's dustbin.
In Iran , we see a regime that backs Hezbollah and Hamas now on course to acquire a nuclear weapon.
In India , we see Islamic terrorists single out the Mumbai Jewish Center in a well-planned and well-coordinated attack that looks like it could be a test run for similar attacks in similar cities around the world.
Most fundamentally, we see a growing assault on both the legitimacy and security of the State of Israel .
This assault comes from people who make clear they have no intention of ever living side-by-side in peace with a Jewish state - no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The reason for this is also clear: These are men who cannot abide the idea of freedom, tolerance, and democracy. They hate Israel for the same reasons they hate us.
At I speak, the flashpoint is Gaza . For months now, Hamas has been raining down rockets on Israeli civilians. Like all terrorist attacks, the aim is to spread fear within free societies, and to paralyze its leaders. This Israel cannot afford. I do not need to tell anyone in this room that no sovereign nation can sit by while its civilian population is attacked.
Hamas knows this better than we do. And Hamas understands something else as well: In the 21st century, when democratic states respond to terrorist attacks, they face two terrible handicaps.
The first handicap is military. It's true that Israel 's conventional superiority means it could flatten Gaza if it wanted. But the Israeli Defense Forces - unlike Hamas - are accountable to a democratically chosen government.
No matter which party is in the majority, every Israeli government knows it will be held accountable by its people and by the world for the lives that are lost because of its decisions. That's true for lives of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire. And it's also true for the Israeli soldiers who may lose their lives defending their people.
In this kind of war, Hamas does not need to defeat Israel militarily to win a big victory. In fact, Hamas knows that in some ways, dead Palestinians serve their purposes even better than dead Israelis.
In the West we look at this and say, "It makes no sense." But it does make sense.
If you are committed to Israel 's destruction, and if you believe that dead Palestinians help you score a propaganda victory, you do things like launch rockets from a Palestinian schoolyard. This ensures that when the Israelis do respond, it will likely lead to the death of an innocent Palestinian - no matter how many precautions Israeli soldiers take.
Hamas gets away with this, moreover, because they do not rule Gaza by the consent of those they claim to represent. They rule by fear and intimidation. They are accountable to no one but themselves.
This is the chilling logic of Gaza . And it helps explain why even a strong military power like Israel can find itself at a disadvantage on the ground.
The second handicap for Israel is the global media war. For Hamas, the images of Palestinian suffering - of people losing their homes, of parents mourning their dead children, of tanks rolling through the streets -create sympathy for their cause.
In a battle marked by street to street fighting, the death of innocents is all but inevitable. That is also true of Gaza . And these deaths have led some to call for Israel to be charged with war crimes by an international tribunal.
But I am curious: Why do we never hear calls for Hamas leaders to be charged with war crimes?
Why, for example, do we hear no calls for human rights investigations into Hamas gunmen using Palestinian children as human shields? Why so few stories on the reports of Hamas assassins going to hospitals to hunt down their fellow Palestinians? And where are the international human rights groups demanding that Hamas stop blurring the most fundamental line in warfare: the distinction between civilian and combatant?
I suspect the answer has to do with the same grim logic that leads Hamas to provoke a military battle it knows it cannot win. Whether Israel is ever found guilty of any war crime hardly matters. Hamas gets propaganda win simply by having the charge made often and loudly enough.
In this, Israel finds itself in much the same position the United States found itself in Iraq before the surge. There, al Qaeda realized that it was in its interests to provoke sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni - no matter what the cost to innocent Iraqis. That is the nature of terror. And what we are seeing in Gaza is just one front in this much larger war.
In the West, we are used to thinking that Israel cannot survive without the help of Europe and the United States . Tonight I say to you: Maybe we should start wondering whether we in Europe and the United States can survive if we allow the terrorists to succeed in Israel .
In this new century, the "West" is no longer a matter of geography. The West is defined by societies committed to freedom and democracy. That at least is how the terrorists see it. And if we are serious about meeting this challenge, we would expand the only military alliance committed to the defense of the West to include those on the front lines of this war. That means bringing countries such as Israel into NATO.
My friends, I do not pretend to have all the answers to Gaza this evening. But I do know this: The free world makes a terrible mistake if we deceive ourselves into thinking this is not our fight.
In the end, the Israeli people are fighting the same enemy we are: cold-blooded killers who reject peace … who reject freedom … and who rule by the suicide vest, the car bomb, and the human shield.
Against such an enemy, I will not second-guess the decisions of a free Israel defending her citizens. And I would ask all those who support peace and freedom to do the same.
I thank you for listening. I thank you for this award. And I thank you for all you are doing to make our world a safer and freer place.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
REPLY TO NORTH KOREA NUKES.
What NK and Iran have are angry paranoid nukes. Both perceive they have been oppressed or invaded by the West, NK in 1950 and Iran a few years later when the CIA got rid of a nationalist leader who wanted a fair shake for Iran. Truman agreed with that but as soon as he was replaced by Ike, Dulles ordered CIA to proceed. This is recent history to these two victims of imperialism, as they perceive it, and they don't trust America. They feel they can never have enough protection against us and will not disarm just to improve Obama's chances for reelection. Iran sees it's position with Israel as kill or be killed. They know Israel would've already attacked if it could have done so successfully. If we felt that way about enemies, we'd act overly defensive too. Hey, wait a minute! Guess what? We do! Why, we tail and imprison suspicious foreigners at the drop of a fez. Our native rightwing terrorists are allowed to march around with assault rifles and shoot up liberals at will as we hunt down veiled women and send them packing, making friends all over the world.
HARVEY CHAIMOWITZ
H
HARVEY CHAIMOWITZ
H
Sunday, June 14, 2009
NORTH KOREA’S NUKES
NORTH KOREA’S NUKES – A CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD PEACE – June 2009
The “Haves” say the Have-Nots” may not have what they have. The Big Nuke Nations, Russia, China, England, France, and the United States, have enough Nukes ready to blast each other and the world out of existence. This condition is known by its acronym, MAD. MAD means Mutual Assured Destruction. In their collective wisdom, these five nations realize that MAD really means world peace. So now, they all possess Peace Nukes.
Peace Nukes are preventive medicine for any nation sick enough to think that Nukes can be used to further the quality of life within their own nation. Such nations are creating Maybe Nukes.
Other countries are now joining the Haves group. North Korea wanted Nukes. North Korea made Nukes. Are they Peace Nukes or Maybe Nukes? Iran wants Nukes too. Iran is making Nukes. Are they Peace Nukes or Maybe Nukes? Pakistan and India have Nukes and maybe they will not use them to bring peace between these two antagonistic neighbors. They are definitely Maybe Nukes.
Israel has Nukes. They are definitely NOT Peace Nukes. They are Maybe Nukes. They have them to assure peace with their billion-plus Arab enemies who also want to obtain Nukes for the sake of peace by wiping out Israel. Syria asked North Korea for help in acquiring some Maybe Nukes. North Korea obliged and began sending that peace-loving nation the elements of Maybe Nukes. Israel responded with a non-Nuke attack on Syria’s planned Maybe Nuke facility. THAT was an act of war!
Israel does not believe that Iranian Nukes are Peace Nukes. The past and present president of Iran, Achmadinajad, has clearly stated his strong desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The question facing Israel, and the world, is this, “Are North Korea and Iran governed by madmen?” For sure they do not possess Peace Nukes. Do they possess Mad Nukes? Or is there a third category of Nukes bubbling to the surface of this witch’s brew, “Use Nukes?”
The world is waiting uneasily for the answer with bated breath.
The “Haves” say the Have-Nots” may not have what they have. The Big Nuke Nations, Russia, China, England, France, and the United States, have enough Nukes ready to blast each other and the world out of existence. This condition is known by its acronym, MAD. MAD means Mutual Assured Destruction. In their collective wisdom, these five nations realize that MAD really means world peace. So now, they all possess Peace Nukes.
Peace Nukes are preventive medicine for any nation sick enough to think that Nukes can be used to further the quality of life within their own nation. Such nations are creating Maybe Nukes.
Other countries are now joining the Haves group. North Korea wanted Nukes. North Korea made Nukes. Are they Peace Nukes or Maybe Nukes? Iran wants Nukes too. Iran is making Nukes. Are they Peace Nukes or Maybe Nukes? Pakistan and India have Nukes and maybe they will not use them to bring peace between these two antagonistic neighbors. They are definitely Maybe Nukes.
Israel has Nukes. They are definitely NOT Peace Nukes. They are Maybe Nukes. They have them to assure peace with their billion-plus Arab enemies who also want to obtain Nukes for the sake of peace by wiping out Israel. Syria asked North Korea for help in acquiring some Maybe Nukes. North Korea obliged and began sending that peace-loving nation the elements of Maybe Nukes. Israel responded with a non-Nuke attack on Syria’s planned Maybe Nuke facility. THAT was an act of war!
Israel does not believe that Iranian Nukes are Peace Nukes. The past and present president of Iran, Achmadinajad, has clearly stated his strong desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The question facing Israel, and the world, is this, “Are North Korea and Iran governed by madmen?” For sure they do not possess Peace Nukes. Do they possess Mad Nukes? Or is there a third category of Nukes bubbling to the surface of this witch’s brew, “Use Nukes?”
The world is waiting uneasily for the answer with bated breath.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
SICK HEALTHCARE
The date is June 13, 2009. The president and congress (controlled by Democrats) are in the process of creating a health care program to assure that every citizen in the United States has “Health Care Coverage.” To guarantee that end, a so-called “Public Plan” is being devised so people in need of health care services will have a choice between going to an insurance company for health care payments and going to the United States government for payment for their health care needs.
Public Plan is being opposed by potential losers if the plan comes into being and is being called a variety of names, from socialized medicine to government controlled health care and wastrel government intervention into the private sector. A battle is taking place in Congress, in the media, and in the minds of the American People. The trenches on the anti-Plan side are filled with money. The pro-Plan people also have financial backers who are far less wealthy or powerful. But they have fairness in their trenches.
The insurance industry attempted to derail this endeavor into being still-born by promising to reduce health care costs over the next ten years by one trillion dollars. They could certainly accomplish this by adding more “Deny” desks to their offices and to the offices of physicians who are their prostitutes. The denial of health care by the insurance industry to up their profits is as natural as banks upping their interest rates on loans.
The American Medical Association is opposed to government involvement in health care delivery out of concern that physicians will not make as much money as they believe they should. That is completely understandable, is it not?
Many health care providers oppose the plan in the belief that by ensuring health care for everyone, they will be paid less for their services than they are at present. The government has traditionally been slow to hand out money to anyone who does not have money. The providers are concerned they may fall into that powerless condition. Hospitals and clinics and those who care for the indigent have small weak lobbies in Washington. So they anticipate that the insurance companies will continue to rake in their huge profits while money is squeezed out of the health care delivery systems, as it is now by those so-called health care insurers. “So-called” because they really do nothing in the way of delivering health care to anyone.
But, perhaps the government will inch forward into fulfilling its role as government in providing for the basic needs of its citizenry; needs like roads and traffic lights, water and sewage disposal, and, YES, health care.
Public Plan is being opposed by potential losers if the plan comes into being and is being called a variety of names, from socialized medicine to government controlled health care and wastrel government intervention into the private sector. A battle is taking place in Congress, in the media, and in the minds of the American People. The trenches on the anti-Plan side are filled with money. The pro-Plan people also have financial backers who are far less wealthy or powerful. But they have fairness in their trenches.
The insurance industry attempted to derail this endeavor into being still-born by promising to reduce health care costs over the next ten years by one trillion dollars. They could certainly accomplish this by adding more “Deny” desks to their offices and to the offices of physicians who are their prostitutes. The denial of health care by the insurance industry to up their profits is as natural as banks upping their interest rates on loans.
The American Medical Association is opposed to government involvement in health care delivery out of concern that physicians will not make as much money as they believe they should. That is completely understandable, is it not?
Many health care providers oppose the plan in the belief that by ensuring health care for everyone, they will be paid less for their services than they are at present. The government has traditionally been slow to hand out money to anyone who does not have money. The providers are concerned they may fall into that powerless condition. Hospitals and clinics and those who care for the indigent have small weak lobbies in Washington. So they anticipate that the insurance companies will continue to rake in their huge profits while money is squeezed out of the health care delivery systems, as it is now by those so-called health care insurers. “So-called” because they really do nothing in the way of delivering health care to anyone.
But, perhaps the government will inch forward into fulfilling its role as government in providing for the basic needs of its citizenry; needs like roads and traffic lights, water and sewage disposal, and, YES, health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)